Academic Journal
View in EDS
Linked Full Text

Clinical Performance of Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Bibliographic Details
Title: Clinical Performance of Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Authors: Chaple Gil AM; Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Carrera de Odontología, Grupo de Investigación en Rehabilitación Oral Basada en Evidencia (GIROBE), Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile., Pereda Vázquez L; Penn Dental Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA., Santiesteban Velázquez M; Universidad Autónoma del Paraguay, Asunción, Paraguay., Menendez JJ; Nova Southeastern University - College of Dental Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
Source: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] [J Esthet Restor Dent] 2026 Nov; Vol. 38 (11), pp. 2089-2103. Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 Jul 06.
Publication Type: Journal Article; Systematic Review; Network Meta-Analysis; Review
Language: English
Journal Info: Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101096515 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1708-8240 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14964155 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Esthet Restor Dent Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s): Publication: London : Wiley-Blackwell
Original Publication: Hamilton, Ontario : BC Decker, c2001-
MeSH Terms: Dental Restoration, Permanent*/methods , Dental Materials*/chemistry , Dentition, Permanent*, Humans ; Glass Ionomer Cements ; Composite Resins
Abstract: Objective: To compare the clinical performance of ion-releasing restorative materials with other direct restorative strategies in permanent teeth using a frequentist network meta-analysis framework.
Materials and Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL without year restriction. Randomized controlled trials evaluating ion-releasing restorative materials (giomer/PRG-based materials, alkasite, and glass carbomer) in permanent teeth were included. Comparators comprised conventional resin composites, glass ionomer cements (GICs), and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIs). Primary outcomes included retention loss, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries assessed using USPHS or FDI criteria. Random-effects pairwise and frequentist network meta-analyses were performed. Inconsistency was evaluated using a design-by-treatment interaction model, and certainty of evidence was assessed with the CINeMA framework.
Results: A total of 13 randomized clinical trials comprising 436 participants and 915 restorations met the inclusion criteria. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 8 years. Glass Carbomer could not be incorporated into the connected treatment network and was therefore retained only in the qualitative synthesis. Across outcomes, ion-releasing restorative materials showed similar clinical outcomes to conventional resin composites and RMGIs. No statistically significant and consistent superiority was identified for any material class. Event rates for postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries were low. Global inconsistency tests were nonsignificant across networks. The certainty of evidence was predominantly moderate, with selected high-confidence contrasts involving alkali formulations.
Conclusions: Ion-releasing restorative materials exhibited short- to medium-term clinical performance comparable to established direct restorative strategies in permanent teeth. Current evidence does not support consistent superiority over conventional resin-based composites or RMGI.
Clinical Significance: Giomer and alkasite materials demonstrated esthetic and functional performance comparable to conventional resin composites and RMGIs in short- to medium-term follow-up, supporting their clinical viability as alternative restorative options. The comparable marginal discoloration rates observed suggest acceptable esthetic outcomes; however, long-term trials incorporating instrumental color assessment and patient-reported esthetic satisfaction are needed to determine whether the bioactive properties of ion-releasing materials confer durable esthetic and clinical advantages.
Trial Registration: PROSPERO number: CRD420261308558.
(© 2026 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)
References: A. Brescia, A. Mastroianni, L. Montesani, et al., “Wear Behaviour of Different Bioactive Restorative Materials,” European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 26, no. 2 (2025): 90–94, https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2025.1960.
G. Zacatenco, N. Marin, S. Rincón, et al., “Giomer: A Novel Material Used in the Prevention and Treatment of Cavities,” Avances en Biomedicina 14, no. 1 (2025): 9–19.
A. Bonchev and R. Bogovska‐Gigova, “Alkasites in Restorative Dentistry: A Review of Their Performance and Properties,” Journal of Dentistry 160 (2025): 105916, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105916.
M. Awad, T. Alshehri, A. Alqarni, et al., “Evaluation of the Bond Strength and Cytotoxicity of Alkasite Restorative Material,” Applied Sciences 10, no. 18 (2020): 6175, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186175.
G. Kaur, C. Shetty, and M. Hegde, “Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Fracture Resistance of Posterior Restorative Materials Alkasite and Newer Glass Ionomers With Amalgam: An In Vitro Study,” Journal of International Oral Health 14, no. 6 (2022): 566–573, https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_95_22.
M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, et al., “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews,” BMJ 372 (2021): n71, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
B. Hutton, G. Salanti, D. M. Caldwell, et al., “The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta‐Analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations,” Annals of Internal Medicine 162, no. 11 (2015): 777–784, https://doi.org/10.7326/m14‐2385.
A. Valizadeh, M. Moassefi, A. Nakhostin‐Ansari, et al., “Abstract Screening Using the Automated Tool Rayyan: Results of Effectiveness in Three Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews,” BMC Medical Research Methodology 22, no. 1 (2022): 160, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874‐022‐01631‐8.
M. Ouzzani, H. Hammady, Z. Fedorowicz, and A. Elmagarmid, “Rayyan—A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews,” Systematic Reviews 5, no. 1 (2016): 210, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643‐016‐0384‐4.
J. A. Sterne, J. Savović, M. J. Page, et al., “RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials,” BMJ 366 (2019): 14898, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.
R. Hirani, R. Batra, and S. Kapoor, “Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity in Bulk Fill Restoratives: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry 8, no. 6 (2018): 534–539, https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_218_18.
Q. U. Ain, S. A. Khokhar, and N. Sarwar, “Comparison of Post Operative Sensitivity Between a Flowable Composite and A Flowable Giomers: In Non‐Carious Cervical Lesion,” Medical Forum Monthly 35, no. 5 (2024): 45–49, https://doi.org/10.60110/medforum.350510.
I. Princy, V. Aravinth, S. Sivasamy, P. Chaly, P. Thampy, and I. Princy, “Comparison of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement and Alkasite as Restorative Material for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment‐ a Randomized Controlled Trial With Split Mouth Design,” Acta Bioclínica 15, no. 29 (2025): 297–318.
S. Saku, H. Kotake, R. Scougall‐Vilchis, et al., “Antibacterial Activity of Composite Resin With Glass‐Ionomer Filler Particles,” Dental Materials Journal 29, no. 2 (2010): 193–198, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2009‐050.
M. Sunico, K. Shinkai, and Y. Katoh, “Two‐Year Clinical Performance of Occlusal and Cervical Giomer Restorations,” Operative Dentistry 30, no. 3 (2005): 282–289.
Ö. Türkoglu, S. Bağlar, and A. C. Bulut, “Different Restorative Systems in Non Carious Cervical Lesions,” Annals of Dental Specialty 8, no. 2 (2020): 20–31.
H. Al‐Salamony, M. Akah, E. Naguib, and O. Safwat, “Clinical Evaluation of Bulk‐Fill Alkasite Restoration vs Resin‐Modified Glass Ionomer in Class V Carious Lesions: 1‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial,” Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 25, no. 12 (2024): 1127–1134, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp‐journals‐10024‐3787.
E. H. Albelasy, H. H. Hamama, H. P. Chew, M. Montasser, and S. H. Mahmoud, “Clinical Performance of Two Ion‐Releasing Bulk‐Fill Composites in Class I and Class II Restorations: A Two‐Year Evaluation,” Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 36, no. 5 (2024): 723–736, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13193.
M. El Ghamrawy, D. Kamal, and H. Hamza, “Clinical Performance and Cost‐Effectiveness of Low‐Shrinkage Giomer Resin Composite Versus Resin‐Modified Glass Ionomer in Cervical Carious Lesions: A 12‐Month Randomized Controlled Trial,” BMC Oral Health 25, no. 1 (2025): 1295, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903‐025‐06594‐y.
N. El‐Salamouny, W. Elmahy, and A. Holiel, “Comparative Evaluation of Bioactive Alkasite‐Based Material in Different Application Modes: A 1‐Year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial,” Odontology 113, no. 4 (2025): 1689–1700, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266‐025‐01095‐4.
R. Hendam, R. Mosallam, and D. Kamal, “Clinical Evaluation of Giomer‐Based Injectable Resin Composite Versus Resin‐Modified Glass Ionomer in Class V Carious Lesions Over 18 Months: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics 28, no. 1 (2025): 50–56, https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_722_24.
A. Lowenstein, C. Mourão, M. Singh, S. Pagni, R. Perry, and G. Kugel, “Resin Composite Surface Pre‐Reacted Glass‐Ionomer (S‐PRG) Filler for Non‐Carious Cervical Lesions: A Double‐Blinded, Randomized, Split‐Mouth Clinical Trial,” Dentistry Journal 13, no. 4 (2025): 156, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13040156.
R. N. Mahmoud, A. H. Ibrahim, A. F. ElZoghby, and O. O. Shaalan, “Clinical Evaluation of Carbomer Compared With High Viscosity Glass Ionomer in Restoration of Root Caries in Geriatric Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of International Oral Health 14, no. 2 (2022): 118–127, https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_319_21.
F. Oz, E. Meral, and S. Gurgan, “Clinical Performance of an Alkasite‐Based Bioactive Restorative in Class II Cavities: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” Journal of Applied Oral Science 31 (2023): e20230025, https://doi.org/10.1590/1678‐7757‐2023‐0025.
B. Priyadarshini, T. Jayaprakash, B. Nagesh, C. Sunil, V. Sujana, and V. Deepa, “One‐Year Comparative Evaluation of Ketac Nano With Resin‐Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Giomer in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” Journal of Conservative Dentistry 20, no. 3 (2017): 204–209, https://doi.org/10.4103/0972‐0707.218305.
H. Sharma, B. Suprabha, R. Shenoy, A. Rao, and H. Kotian, “Clinical Effectiveness of Alkasite Versus Nanofilled Resin Composite in the Restoration of Occlusal Carious Lesions in Permanent Molar Teeth of Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 24, no. 3 (2023): 301–311, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368‐023‐00788‐0.
F. Tian, H. Mu, Y. Shi, et al., “Clinical Evaluation of Giomer and Self‐Etch Adhesive Compared With Nanofilled Resin Composite and Etch‐and‐Rinse Adhesive—Results at 8 Years,” Dental Materials 40, no. 7 (2024): 1088–1095, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.05.013.
T. Toz‐Akalin, F. Öztürk‐Bozkurt, M. Kusdemir, A. Özsoy, E. Yüzbasioglu, and M. Özcan, “Three‐Year Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Using Low‐Shrinkage Giomer vs. Nano‐Hybrid Resin Composite,” Frontiers in Dental Medicine 5 (2024): 1459473, https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2024.1459473.
T. Toz‐Akalin, F. Öztürk‐Bozkurt, M. Kusdemir, A. Özsoy, E. Yüzbaşıoğlu, and M. Özcan, “Clinical Evaluation of Low‐Shrinkage Bioactive Material Giomer Versus Nanohybrid Resin Composite Restorations: A Two‐Year Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial,” Operative Dentistry 48, no. 1 (2023): 10–20, https://doi.org/10.2341/21‐155‐C.
M. Justen, D. Scheck, E. A. Münchow, and J. J. Jardim, “Is Cention‐N Comparable to Other Direct Dental Restorative Materials? A Systematic Review With Network Meta‐Analysis of In Vitro Studies,” Dental Materials 40, no. 9 (2024): 1341–1352, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2024.06.014.
R. Manente, P. C. da Silva Mira, and S. A. Milori Corona, “Bioactive Materials With S‐PRG Filler in Paediatric Dentistry: A Scoping Review,” European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 27 (2025): 275–292, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368‐025‐01077‐8.
Contributed Indexing: Keywords: alkasite; clinical performance; direct restoration; giomer; ion‐releasing restoration; ion‐releasing restorative materials; network meta‐analysis
Substance Nomenclature: 0 (Glass Ionomer Cements)
0 (Dental Materials)
0 (Composite Resins)
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20260706 Date Completed: 20261020 Latest Revision: 20261021
Update Code: 20261022
DOI: 10.1111/jerd.70229
PMID: 42405689
Database: MEDLINE
Description
ISSN:1708-8240
DOI:10.1111/jerd.70229